|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hrm. I thought that, theoretically, if (the big IF) mass did travel at that speed, then it would be light. I.e. it would become light. Absoluetly not. Pseudo-scientific bullshit perpetuated in popular science and all over the internet...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
humoshi Junior Member (Idle past 5271 days) Posts: 25 Joined: |
quote:Does is really make sense to say energy is converted to mass or vice versa? This would seem to violate the conservation of energy. Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called mass is converted to another form of energy (gamma rays or some other high energy photon?) I'm not authority on this subject, just curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey, Heinrik,
I believe there are many misconceptions on this forum concerning E=mc2. Energy= mass multiplied by the speed of light mulitplied by the speed of light. Just imagine that for a moment. It cannot be done but you have a preconcieved notion that it has been done and you are not alone in this. It is a misconception on your part and many others. The way I understand it is that many experiments have been done that have measured the amount of energy and mass before, and the amount of energy and mass after, many energy gain\loss events. Then they compare before and after totals and the changes in energy to the changes in mass (that they can measure): and (E + m•c²)1 - (E + m•c²)2 = k (where k = 0 if the formula is correct) or (E1 - E2) + (m1•c² - m2•c²) = k or ΔEnergy + ΔMass•c² = k For each of the experiments. If energy is converted into mass then In the reference provided by Modulus above http://www.physorg.com/news9248.html
quote: What they found was that Which is reasonably close to 0 for all practical purposes, especially given the accuracy of measurements of energy and mass. Now perhaps what you find problematical is the use of the speed of light as a conversion factor, when it seems to be just an arbitrary number to use as a constant. It could just be a conversion factor similar to "G" in Newton's gravity equation: and it just happens to be equal to c². Is that it? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : format Edited by RAZD, : = by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called mass is converted to another form of energy If you really feel that strongly about it, okay. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
humoshi Junior Member (Idle past 5271 days) Posts: 25 Joined: |
I wasn't trying to be pedantic.
I just think a lot of confusion arises when a laymen (like myself and Heinrik) tries to understand the equation if that's not explicitly stated. Otherwise people get the impression that energy can exist in and of itself and doesn't have to be associated with something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Well, I thought it was clear enough, but if you found it confusing then I apologize.
But if you read his posts, I think you'll see that Heinrick's confusion is far, far deeper than we can possibly imagine. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:Well, I don't think this is the source of the confusion, actually. I think the source of confusion is that laymen put too much values in the words while real physicists only use words as tools to communicate with other people. The words "energy" and "mass" are just linguistic representations of what physicists observe. Tomorrow, we could call it "hoogabooga" and it still wouldn't change what it is. I think the best way for laymen to understand these concepts is that they try to not put too much value on semantics and more on the concepts and mathematics of it. But yes, "mass" can be understood as just a form of "energy".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5008 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Take your arms and point them outward at 90o angles to the direction you are facing. These represent the direction of momentum that you can have. At rest, you can go left, right, or straight ahead. As your velocity theoetically increases in the direction you are facing, we can represent this by slowly bringing your arms together in front of you to the direction you are facing. As you speed up, and as the angle of your arms gets less and less, your momentum in the left and right directions is less and less. At the point when both your arms are pointing in the direction you are facing, you have become light and your momentum can go nowhere but forward. You mass has tranformed into energy. The energy available from this trasformation is proportional to the amount of mass that was available (obviosly) and is also exponentially proportions to the veocity. This exponent is 2. Its proportional to the speed squared. Thankyou but I still don't see myself travelling at the speed of light squared. I do not have enough scientific knowledge to understand the jargon but enough to understand the "misconceptions" involving a scientific equasion. It seems most of you are running past the winning post (so to speak.) Many of you have described experiments that prove/form the empirical evidence wich I do not dispute. In fact, I could not without going back to uni The focul point of this discussion is that no experiment has been done exactly as the equasion suggests, word for word. Science has not the technology to send any mass anywhere at the speed of light squared. The 'misconception' is that "the average great minded, none scientist who does not have the expertise to understand the difference between 'empirical' and 'actual' evidence believes and argues that it has been actualized and again, I repeat, it has not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5008 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Actually, the only misconception is yours. It's hard to tell what your misconception is, though, since you can't seem to express your idea very clearly. That is usually a sign that it's probably too nutty to really be understood, but maybe the problem is with communicating ideas you just don't really understand. E = mc2 has a definite meaning in physics. What you think it means or what it should mean is irrelevant. Physicists know what they mean when they discuss this formula. And it has been verified. You actually asked for an example of an experiment where it was verified -- Modulus provided one such experiment, and now you claim that he was off-topic. I'm guessing that you are a nut. Oh dear, have I upset you in some way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5008 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Whose conceptions are you disputing? What conceptions do you find problematic? It isn't meant to be personal conceptions but conceptions in general. The one conception that I am disputing is that : science has reproduced\actualized the equasion E=MC2. They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared. The "misconception" is that the general lay man believes, argues and tries to prove that it has. Hope this clarifes the mis-understandings. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared. Nor do they have to, since the equation has nothing to do with any mass travelling at the "speed of light squared". Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Heinrik,
c is a universal constant that can be directly measured because it is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. The c2 in the equation is just a conversion factor between mass and energy and has nothing to do with how fast the mass is traveling. Using units of meters/second for c, the equation could be rewritten like this:
E = 8.98755179 1016 (meters2/seconds2) m So if you converted, say, 5 kilograms of mass to energy, the amount of energy released would be:
E = 8.98755179 1016 (meters2/seconds2) 5 kg = 4.49377589 1017 kilogram (meters2/seconds2) = 4.49377589 1017 joules Does that help? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared. Nor at the speed of sound squared, or at the speed of a turtle squared, or that of continental drift squared. Speed (well, velocity) is in units of distance/time, as in meters/sec or furlongs/fortnight. Only those units. Not (meters)2/(second)2, like c2 is in. You simply have a misconception, Henrik, of what algebra is all about. Edited by Coragyps, : fix tags?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hello, Humoshi!! Welcome!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024